False criminal case on the basis of false special private.
dr syed ziya ul huq
(Querist) 27 September 2017
This query is : Resolved
On 26/2/2016,at 12. 35 pm I was on in front of dysp of Humnabad. Dist Bidar to lodge a complaint.a FiR was lodged .My opponents ,didn't come to police station,because they were known criminals.instead they went to SP ,to make false complaint. They failed to get any response. Then they went to session court to make special private complaint. The session court ordered an investigation. Instead of giving a B report after investigation, the CSI, who had taken huge graft from the opponents, made a prima fascie case,under 504,506,323,35 of ipc. This corrupt CSI was getting transferred with In weeks .Before his departure he made absolutely false case. Iam a senior citizen. The false case ,bears the same
timing of 10.30 AM,which I have mentioned in my FIR . At 10.35 I was in front of dysp of polic
Now case in court. Question is shall I fight the case in court alone or approach Home minister and higher police authorities, with complaint against this absolutely false case ,registered due to corruption. ???.
Plz give the advice.
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 27 September 2017
Since the case is in court now, engage a lawyer and defend your case on merits.
It seems the Dy. SP may avoid to come to court to defend you / witness in your favor. If you can prove the facts otherwise you should try.
Guest
(Expert) 27 September 2017
Once a case reaches a court, any political influence or of police is not supposed to work, rather can prove harmful to your cause and credibility, when you are right. Approach to home minister or higher police authorities may become futile and wasteful effort on your part.
So, you must fight the case on merits of the case, but very effectively. However, if you are capable to prove graft charges against police, that can give more force to your case.
Guest
(Expert) 27 September 2017
It seems that Mr. Rajendra K Goyal has not even read the problem properly.
That makes clear from his statement, "it seems the Dy SP may avoid to come to court to defend you/ witness in your favour." That further makes clear that neither he has been able to distinguish between the terms, "DySP" (Designation) and "in front of DySP" (office), nor the basic problem.of the querist.
As per the description of the problem, the investigation was made by CSI, not Dy.SP.
A good example of his expertise!
